Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy November Decisions
Docket No. 521-25SEC (November 7, 2025). The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the School Ethics Commission’s (SEC) recommended penalty of reprimand for respondent’s actions in inaccurately completing her Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements.
Docket No. 523-25E (November 7, 2025). Petitioners filed a petition of appeal and application for emergent relief challenging the board’s decision to deny them access to school meetings and related school activities, including parent-teacher conferences and board meetings, because they (petitioners) “acted in a threatening manner [in] the school environment, despite repeated warnings.”
The COE concurred with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief.
Docket No. 528-25 (November 17, 2025). During gym class, T.S. called another student “autistic,” and the student cried as a result. As part of the investigation, the victim reported that T.S. also called him “weird.” T.S. initially denied calling the victim autistic, but said he told him to “shut up” or “stop talking” when he (the victim) said he was a better basketball player than T.S. Later, T.S. admitted to calling the victim “dumb,” and conceded that he did call the victim “autistic” because the victim “kept bugging him.” The Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS) concluded that the conduct constituted harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). The board affirmed the determination, and petitioners appealed.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioner failed to prove that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. Even if T.S. did not call the victim “autistic,” he admitted to calling him “dumb,” and that comment was sufficient on its own to support the board’s finding. The COE also noted that the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABR) “does not define acceptable sources of information regarding HIB allegations, nor does the [ABR] contain any requirements related to hearsay or corroboration.” The COE did not find any of the alleged procedural violations to be sufficient to warrant reversal of the board’s decision.
Docket No. 529-25 (November 17, 2025). After the board proposed a redistricting plan to balance the school district’s budget, petitioners filed a petition of appeal to stay implementation of the plan. The ALJ granted the board’s unopposed motion for summary decision, finding that the board’s actions in devising the redistricting plan “were honest, forthright, and thoughtful,” and that the redistricting plan was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that the board’s unopposed motion for summary decision should be granted, and that the petition of appeal should be dismissed.
School Ethics Commission
Decisions Adopted on November 25, 2025
Docket No. C82-22. After a former administrator filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the board and the superintendent, respondent forwarded e-mail messages and confidential/privileged board-related documentation and information from her board e-mail account to her personal e-mail account, printed the documents, and then caused the packet of information to be shared with the former administrator. By disclosing confidential/privileged information to a former administrator in order to assist him with the prosecution of his lawsuit against the board and the superintendent, complainants contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (g), and (i).
The SEC agreed with the ALJ that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (g), and (i), but modified the recommended penalty of reprimand to censure. Not only were respondent’s actions completely inappropriate, in direct contravention of her duties to the board, and in violation of the public trust, but she had been censured previously for violating multiple provisions of the School Ethics Act (the Act).
Docket No. C14-25. Respondent M.S. (the Board President) sent an email to every member of the board, except for complainant, expressing his “dislike with” complainant “due to them exercising their rights as a private citizen.” Following respondent M.S.’s request for a response from his fellow board members, four board members replied with their “wishes or voiced their personal opinion,” one replied and refused to take part in the matter, and two board members did not reply.
Complainant contended that respondent M.S. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because he sent an email to a quorum of the board and requested a response in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), and also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because he “took official action and sent the email to collect votes or opinions from [b]oard members to plan an attack against a fellow [b]oard member” (Count 1); respondent A.A., respondent S.C., and respondent L.S. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because they separately replied to respondent M.S.’s e-mail in violation of OPMA (Count 2, Count 4, and Count 5); and respondent K.C. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because she too replied to respondent M.S.’s e-mail in violation of OPMA, and also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because she did not consult with complainant, a person who would be affected by her decision.
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act.
Docket No. C15-25. In connection with an ethics complaint that complainant previously filed against the named respondent, respondent submitted a certification from the “newly hired” superintendent which supported her (respondent’s) arguments. By unilaterally requesting and obtaining a certification from the “newly hired” superintendent without the full board’s knowledge or approval, and by relying upon that certification to defend herself against the ethics complaint filed by complainant, complainant argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (i).
The SEC did not find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act.
Docket No. C23-25, C43-25, and C44-25 (Consolidated). After serving as board counsel for more than 30 years, the law of firm of S & P was replaced by CLG on January 1, 2024. In November 2024, respondent R.C. and respondent D.D. held an “unscheduled, impromptu meeting” with the business administrator (BA) without the knowledge of the superintendent, the then board president, or any other board member, and asked for the legal services proposal previously submitted by the law firm of S & P be added to the board’s December 2024 agenda because “a majority of the [b]oard ha[d] never seen or reviewed the proposal.” Upon learning of the “unauthorized” addition to the agenda, the then board president stated that respondent R.C. and respondent D.D. “acted outside of the proper procedures” and attempted to “unilaterally introduce a proposal for legal services, bypassing the established [b]oard processes for agenda-setting and procurement.” In March 2025, and following reorganization and the appointment of new officers, the law firm of S & P replaced CLG as board counsel.
Based on these facts, complainant argued that respondent R.C. (C23-25 and C43-25) violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (i); respondent D.D. (C43-25) violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e) and (i); and respondent E.C. (C44-25), who became board president following reorganization in 2025, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d) and (f).
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act.
Advisory Opinions
At its meeting on November 25, 2025, the SEC also voted to make 20 advisory opinions public.
Advisory Opinion A01-25. A board member owns a private business/“franchise” outside of the school district, and inquired whether an administrator could be paid by the board member/their franchise to perform data entry work for the “franchise.”
The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the board member could hire the administrator, or whether the administrator could accept the position. Nonetheless, such a relationship “is riddled with potential ethical violations”; has the potential to prejudice the administrator’s independence of judgment; and could present a substantial conflict with the board member’s discharge of their duties.
Advisory Opinion A02-25. In 2023, the superintendent reported their “concerns” about the processing and awarding of a request for proposal which occurred during the subject board member’s previous term of service (2021) to the board and to the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability. The superintendent inquired whether the subject board member’s “status as the subject of [the superintendent’s] whistleblower disclosure” precluded them from participating in matters related to their employment (including issuing Rice notices).
The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the board member can issue a Rice notice to the superintendent as it is a board governance issue. Notwithstanding the board member’s demand for an apology, the board member did not have a per se conflict with matters related to the superintendent’s employment (see also A08-25).
Advisory Opinion A04-25. A board member is employed by the community college as the business coordinator, and is part of the college’s professional staff collective bargaining unit which is represented by the “New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) – National Education Association (NEA).” Board counsel inquired whether the board member can participate in negotiations with the local education association.
Because the community college’s professional staff is represented by the NJEA-NEA, the SEC advised that the board member cannot participate in any aspect of negotiations with the local union until after the memorandum of agreement, including the salary guides and the total compensation package have been attained.
Advisory Opinion A05-25. Seven of the board’s nine members have either an immediate family member or a relative employed in the district. In light of A05-23, the seven conflicted board members are not members of the “Finance, Governance, Negotiations, and/or Instruction & Programming Committees.” Board counsel asked whether the board (1) was limited to having only two non-conflicted members continue to serve on the majority of the board’s committees; (2) can restructure the committee’s roles and responsibilities; and can (3) invoke the doctrine of necessity “to balance the membership of the committees.”
The SEC advised that because there are two non-conflicted board members who can serve on the board’s committees, invocation of the doctrine of necessity was not warranted; the Vice President may choose the members of those committees for which the Board President has a conflict; and the mere presence of the superintendent on a committee is not what presents the conflict. The SEC additionally advised that, because it is a board governance issue beyond its jurisdiction, it cannot opine on whether the board can restructure its committees.
Advisory Opinion A06-25. Board members of a non-operating school district inquired whether they must recuse themselves from the discussions and/or votes to sell or lease district property to an Academy because members of their immediate family and/or relatives previously attended the Academy or worked at the Academy.
The SEC advised that the board members did not have a conflict related to the sale or transfer of the board’s property to the Academy.
Advisory Opinion A07-25. The President and Vice President of the local education association filed an ethics complaint against a board member and two administrators. The board member inquired whether they are conflicted from matters involving the superintendent.
The SEC advised that the board member did not have an automatic conflict related to matters involving the superintendent because the superintendent did not file the ethics complaint. Instead, and because the President and Vice President of the local education association filed the complaint, the board member was prohibited from being involved in all matters related to the local education association (including negotiations) until the ethics complaint was fully adjudicated.
Advisory Opinion A08-25. After the superintendent began their employment in 2023, they identified “concerns” with the way a request for proposals was processed and awarded in 2021. The superintendent reported their concerns to the board, and to the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) in 2023. A board member, who served on the board when the “concerning” contract was awarded, inquired whether, with a new term beginning in 2025, they could participate in matters related to the superintendent.
The SEC advised that there was no evidence that the board member could not exercise independence of judgment or otherwise be objective in matters related to the superintendent’s employment. However, if OPIA initiated an investigation and the board member was a “person of interest related to the investigation,” the board member should then recuse (see also A02-25).
Advisory Opinion A10-25. A board member is employed at an elementary school that is one of four schools that sends its students to the “local regional high school.” The board on which they serve is also a sending district. The board member inquired whether they could apply for a regional curriculum coordinator position that would be utilized by and paid for, pro-rata, by all four sending districts; however, their “employer” would remain as their current elementary school. The board member inquired: (1) whether they are eligible to accept the position and still serve on the board; (2) whether they are ineligible for appointment for a period of six months (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-1.1); and (3) whether they can resign, be unpaid for six months, and then begin to receive compensation for the position (see also A20-25).
The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to address the second or third inquiry. As for the first, because the district for which they serve as a board member would be required to pay a “share of the [regional] position’s compensation,” the board member would violate the Act if they continued to serve on the board after accepting the position.
Advisory Opinion A11-25. Following a failed campaign in 2023, and after being “strongly endorsed” by the local education association following their support of the union’s negotiations position and efforts, the subject board member was elected. Following their election, the subject board member wore a union-created t-shirt (“LOVE [Union]”) to reorganization; attended a union rally; and made a statement at a public meeting criticizing the board’s response time to the union in connection with negotiations. The requestor inquired whether the subject board member may (1) participate in negotiations; (2) wear union clothing or paraphernalia at future board meetings; (3) attend future local education association negotiations rallies; or (4) speak privately about negotiations with union members or advisors.
The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to address the second or third inquiry. For the remainder of the request, the SEC advised that “supporting the teachers and/or the [union] does not, in and of itself, create a per se conflict of interest” for negotiations; if the subject board member does not agree with the board’s negotiations posture or approach, they are free to vote “no” or to “abstain” from ratifying the contract; and the subject board member can speak with their children’s teachers and/or union members “in general,” but cannot share or disclose any confidential information related to negotiations or otherwise.
Advisory Opinion A12-25. A board member has a child who was unilaterally placed at a private out-of-district school and, in their capacity as a parent, met with (and will need to continue to meet with) the Director of Special Services (Director). The board member requested guidance on whether they need to change their advocacy efforts or interaction(s) with the Director.
The SEC advised that the advocacy efforts of a parent/board member are permissible so long as they do not impair their objectivity or independence of judgment and/or provide an unwarranted advantage, privilege or employment to themselves, a member of their immediate family or an “other”; the board member must recuse “from all discussions and votes related to out-of-district placements and any other special education services for their child, as well as for other children and families within the [d]istrict”; and, given their communications with the Director, they “should not participate in any discussions or votes related to the employment” of the Director.
Advisory Opinion A13-25. Board counsel advised that a board member hired a district teacher, but not their child’s classroom teacher, to tutor their child, and inquired whether the board member’s hiring of a district teacher violated the Act, and whether the board member must recuse themselves from matters involving the district teacher.
The SEC advised that advisory opinions are limited to addressing prospective activity or conduct and, therefore, it could not determine whether prior conduct violated the Act. In addition, the board member must recuse from all matters related to the district teacher’s employment, including negotiations, while the teacher is employed as a tutor.
Advisory Opinion A14-25. Three board members advised that they are “either explicitly or substantively implicated in a [civil] complaint” that was filed by the superintendent, and inquired whether, because of the complaint, they are precluded from participating in matters related to the superintendent, and whether the board could invoke the doctrine of necessity “if a quorum [was] not available due to required recusals.”
The SEC advised it cannot offer an opinion on whether the board members had a conflict regarding the superintendent because the complaint is pending (abeyance). As to the invocation of the doctrine of necessity, if the board needs to vote on a matter related to the superintendent’s employment and a quorum of the board has conflicts, then the doctrine can be invoked.
Advisory Opinion A15-25. A board member is employed as the director for the city, and is appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. A district employee is an elected councilman, and several others have immediate family members or relatives who are elected councilmen (and the board member already recuses from these matters). The board member sought guidance as to whether he can participate in matters related to the superintendent.
The SEC advised that the board member should not participate in any matters related to: the district employee/councilman; the district employees with immediate family members/relatives who are councilmen; or the superintendent.
Advisory Opinion A16-25. A board member is engaged to the district’s BA. Board counsel sought guidance as to whether the board member can vote on the district’s annual budget, and whether this analysis would change once they are married.
The SEC advised that the board member should not participate in any discussions or votes (now and after they are married) related to: budgetary matters including, but not limited to, the district’s annual budget; the BA’s employment; those individuals who the BA supervises; and those individuals who supervise the BA (most likely just the superintendent).
Advisory Opinion A17-25. Board member A and B “received a number of signatures from district administrators that reside in the town in this upcoming election and in past years.” The requestor inquired whether board member A and/or B may vote on matters involving these administrators, the administrators’ family members, and/or matters involving the departments, programs, and employees that the administrators oversee.
The SEC advised that board member A and B may vote on all matters.
Advisory Opinion A18-25. A board member has a “history of direct litigation with” the superintendent and a “long-running public campaign of criticism” regarding the superintendent. The requestor inquired whether the board member can participate in matters related to the superintendent’s employment.
The SEC advised that, in these situations, the facts “must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the public might reasonably perceive that a prior animus has the potential to prejudice or interfere with a board member’s independence of judgment.” Here, because of the long-standing negative history between the parties, the board member should not participate in any matters related to the superintendent’s employment.
Advisory Opinion A19-25. An employee resigned from the district, citing “perceived adverse actions by the superintendent” and frequently attended board meetings to criticize the superintendent during the public comment period. The former employee was appointed to the board approximately three years after resigning. The requestor inquired whether the former employee/board member can participate in matters related to the superintendent.
The SEC advised that the board member’s “vocal opposition” to the superintendent “does not mean that [the board member] cannot exercise independence of judgment or otherwise be objective in matters related to the [s]uperintendent,” especially in light of the “sufficient” lapse of time from the board member’s employment in the district (three years).
Advisory Opinion A20-25. A board member serves on a sending-board that is a part of a regional school district (Regional) and applied for a curriculum coordinator position that would be shared by the sending districts in the Regional. The superintendents in the Regional determined that the board member was conflicted from holding the position. The superintendent of the board member’s district relayed this decision to the board member. The superintendent inquired whether the board member could participate in the superintendent’s evaluation process.
The SEC advised that the board member does not have a per se conflict related to the superintendent’s evaluation process just because the superintendent contacted the board member “to explain that [the Regional] could not move forward with [their] application” (see also A10-25).
Advisory Opinion A21-25. In the district, non-profit organizations and for-profit businesses (collectively referred to as entities) conduct fundraising activities to benefit the district, the schools, and teachers. Several board members sought guidance regarding the extent to which they can volunteer for and/or work with these entities.
The SEC advised that, because the entities do not appear to be “under the control of, overseen by, or otherwise managed by” the board or district, the board members may: volunteer at and attend fundraising events organized by the entities; make personal financial or in-kind contributions to these entities, as long as “they do not provide a donation as an attempt to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for themselves, members of their immediate family, or ‘others.’”; and patronize events where proceeds are donated to the district, as long as they do not use their positions as board members to obtain financial benefits (e.g., free or reduced products).
Advisory Opinion A22-25. On a nine-member board, five of the six non-conflicted board members agreed to amend the superintendent’s contract but, subsequent to this decision, several may have been contacted by the mayor and/or their staff directing them to vote against the proposed contract. Based on the outside influence and political pressure, board counsel inquired whether the board members could vote on the proposed contract.
The SEC advised that contact by the mayor and/or their staff, without more, did not create a conflict because “it cannot be assumed” that the board members “have or will surrender their independent judgment to the [m]ayor or anyone on his/her staff.”
*For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for formal legal advice.
